An Idea I came up with, a "legal" abortion.

[MWGwyn]

Before you say abortions are already legal, read what I have to say.


If a women gets pregnent, and dosn't want a baby, she can kill it. Fine, her body she can do whatever. but...BUT if a MAN dosn't want the baby he STILL has to pay child support. So if it's all fine and dandy to kill a child if the women dosn't want it, why does a man get hell if he wont pay for it?

I think there should be a "legal" abortion, like paperwise, the man can legaly not have a child, and not have to pay for it. If the woman can kill it if she wants, then the man should be able to save his money if he wants.

[Anticrombie0909]

Bit heartless, but it works, yeah.

[viktoria_s]

I'm a female, but I have to say that I agree with you. It is as much the man's fault as it is the woman's fault if she gets pregnant. It's true that women have to go trough all the pain and so on, but if a woman doesn't want a baby, then USE PROTECTION!

[jewpinthethird]

Yes, very true. You get the prize of the day....which is...nothing. But you should be honored that you got the prize of the day.

[lightdarkness]

I think it is a very vaild point
up untill now, and still it has always been up to the woman.
She gets to decided if the baby lives or dies.
If the man doesnt want the child, and the woman does, he still has to shell out a few hundred bucks a month for something he doesnt want.
Although i think its wrong for a man to just abandon his child, he should at least have a say in the babies future.

[MWGwyn]

Yes, very true. You get the prize of the day....which is...nothing. But you should be honored that you got the prize of the day.


hmmm, can I cash that in for it's money value?

[jewpinthethird]

No. You cant. Trust me, it isnt worth the hassle.

Abortion is a mutual decision. Therefore, the woman cant just decide "I want it dead" without consulting the father, and vise-versa. Therefore, if the woman doesnt want it dead, and the man does, the man should have to pay child support.

But then there are the cases in which the quaterback of the football team knocks up a cheerleader, and the cheer leader doesnt want it dead, but the quater back does, and makes them sign an agreement that he doesnt have to pay child support....Whatever.

[lightdarkness]

well.. then you run into people who give birth to their child then abandon it
there is and will never be a solution to abortion

[kineom34]

I had a really good reason why they have that child support thing, but I can't remember what it was. and I just thought of it like . . . 3 minutes ago. Sad, eh?

[chardish]

It shouldn't be either parent's choice to make. Mutually, they made the choice to create a new child.

There are arguments against this, of course.
"We didn't intend to get pregnant."
"Our form(s) of protection failed."
"It was just one night."

Anything like that. But when it comes down to it, when a man and a woman come together in sexual intercourse, they are doing it with the full understanding that it might result in a child, and they are willing to accept those consequences should that happen.

Sex does not exist as a way for human beings to get pleasure. Sex exists to propagate the species. The only reason it's pleasurable is because if it weren't, people would have no reason to engage in it. If you get pregnant, that's just nature at work, and that means that the sex, the reproductive act, has performed its duty. If you're not willing to accept reproduction, don't perform the reproductive act.

And never, EVER put trust in any form of birth control. Birth control often fails. I know 3 people who have gotten pregnant accidentally despite using birth control correctly.

And abortion is a horror. It should not be considered in any circumstance, ever. As a society, what we need is unconditional love for all children, even the unborn. We need to stop treating them like objects or parasites or creatures and start treating them like the human beings they are.

[MikeyFox]

Just bone her in the ass, no prob
















kidding

[Scarlette]

Abortion is bad.

Don't do it.

Kthx bye.

[Lupin_the_3rd]

Mr. Mackey says abortion is bad m'kay

[Anticrombie0909]

Don't say ass just say buns
Like buns, buns-wipe or you're a buns-hole

[BluE_MeaniE]

Abortion is bad.
Don't do it.
Ok.

Wow, I live in a mostly liberal/pro choice/all that kind of stuff type of town.
Almost EVERYONE in my school has similar opinions when it comes to things like this, and it's shocking how often I forget that people have differing opinions, like some people here, than me.
I'm not saying that your opinions are wrong, I just never hear this side of the story. (There were other quotes I could have used, but this was the shortest.)

[kineom34]

Scarlette, you don't leave much room for debate, do you? lol

Hmm . . . My town is mostly conservative, but will support some liberal views if presented correctly. Very much a community. If it effects one person, a bunch will rally around them. I hate it here, I can't wait to moce to New York, lol

[heyhey11]

Just bone her in the ass, no prob

It isnt much different if you use lube and THERE IS NO BABY NO MATTER WHAT

very smart mikey

[Anonymous]

i don't know.. because there are always those casses when a girl got raped... does she really want the child ( lets immagin she's a thirteen year old girl living with her parents and going to school not having a job) .. you know how tramatizing that would be?
personally.. i think abortion is bad.. but in some casses such as this, i would make an exception .. you never really understand a person's decision unless you know their circumstances, and since i don't it's hard for me to say "all people shouldn't get abortions" ..
and what about if (using someone's example.. can't remember whotho) the captain of the football team knocks up the cheerleeder, and vice versa.. like she doesn't want the kid, and the guy does.. he has no say right? i think that's a load of crap... (by the way.. i'm a chick.. ) .. i don't know...

[XsmurfX]

by the way... that was me.. i forgot to sign in.. lol ^_^

[SuperGreenX]

If you are Christian and pro-choice (or pro capital punishment or assisted suicide), you need to read the Bible. It's obvious that only God is supposed to excersize the power of deciding what human life lives and dies and at what time life begins and ends. If you're not religious, then I still disagree with you, but I can't hurl the Bible-thumping angle at ya. What I can say, however, is why is the child the one to pay for someone else's screw up (or crime in the case of rape)? Get your **** together, get a job, learn to be a parent, or give up for adoption. Any life at all is better than none. Don't lay the consequences of your ****up or misfortune on others.

There are the pro-life views :).

[MWGwyn]

Well, I'm not all for abortion, I mean, who kills a baby? I'm just aginst this horrible double standard that women can kill and living being if she dosn't want it, but men can't not pay for it if they don't want it. Of course I think a women should have it, and the man SHOULD pay for it, but as long as the female can kill it, the man should be able to disown it by law. I women want equal rights, they should think about double standards for the male gender too.

[Scarlette]

If you can read this, you weren't aborted! Call your mom and thank her! ^_^

[chardish]

I'm against the horrible standard that a baby inside a woman's body is regarded as less than human and disposable, whereas a baby outside a woman's body is regarded as a precious treasure.

[BluE_MeaniE]

At the beginning stages of pregnancy, the baby is not really so alive. (In my opinion, of course. Scientifically, there is probably a definition for "alive," but I'm not sure what it is.) It's not aware, it can't think, it hasn't really formed together, and so I don't think it is alive enough to "kill" it, and therefore, I don't think anyone should be restricted from having an abortion.

Abortions at the end of a pregnancy, though, are different.
At the very end, just before the baby is going to be born, it is just basically a real baby, which happens to be inside of somebody. So that, is an entirely different subject, and I'm not fully sure of my opinion, because I don't know everything.

[Falcon]

using that definition, what is the baby before, say, the 2nd trimester? if its not alive, then logically its dead, correct? the fetus, in whatever form, is the coming together of the egg and the sperm, two things that are alive. when they merge, they obviously stay alive. now, is the baby conscious? no. but, how can define consciousness (and no, that wasnt an invitation for someone to go look up the word "consciousness")? when does a baby/person truly become "conscious"? i dont believe that we have the ability or the right to make that decision. killing is killing.

[BluE_MeaniE]

if its not alive, then logically its dead, correct?
...
killing is killing.

1. No, I don't believe that's true. something can be not-alive-yet, and not be alive nor dead.

2. That's the debate. "Is it killing or not?"
Also another debate is, if it is killing, how important is it?
Now, that sounds cold-blooded, but (and this is an obvious, cliche, common comment) hey, we kill animals to eat them. Or, if not animals, plants, which are living things. They aren't concious, but like you said, conciousness isn't really a full factor.
Now, I'm not cold-blooded, and I can't compare this really to eating. We're not eating babies....that's...not good. But in some situations, (I admit not all situations. Know that I know this!) The baby will be born, and die for whatever reason, which is why it was important to get an abortion.
So would you rather have a baby die at 6 weeks, or at 6 weeks, before being born.

*Augh, I'm sorry. I kind of forgot what I was trying to say in mid-typing, so I think I kind of jumped around, and didn't stay on one topic. But hopefully, you'll be able to grasp all of the points I am trying to say.*

[chardish]

A human being is alive from the moment that sperm and egg meet. At that point, the DNA of the child is formed. He has a full set of unique chromosomes, and is a completely unique individual. His genetic fate is already sealed - contained in that information is everything about how he's going to be when he's 20, 30, 40, 80.

If you take any measure to destroy an unborn child, you are destroying an individual human being. Not a "potential" human being, but an actual, real, living human being.

Now, pro-abortion people are likely to bring up the issue of "not fully developed." They'll tell you that because the individual human being isn't "fully developed", he doesn't deserve to live. This is ridiculous, because human beings aren't fully developed until anywhere from 13-17, when their reproductive organs mature and they gain the ability to produce children. What if we were allowed to kill our children until they were capable of bearing young? Wouldn't people view such a law as an atrocity?

[Tasuke]

Just not have freakin' sex
there solved the problem, if you have sex try like all kinds of protection:
pill, patch, spermicide, condom, need I go on?

[BluE_MeaniE]

Well, there really is no right or wrong answer.
chardish, many of those things you said aren't definite fact, so that is where the debate lies.

Is a pizza when you put your fists in the dough, or when it comes out of the oven?

[chardish]

Every word I said was definite fact.

And the pizza argument is inappropriate. We're talking about a living being, created through a biological act. You're talking about food.

[BluE_MeaniE]

Well, there is no more use arguing, because it's hard to argue with somebody who has a definite decision, and I don't.
But let's just leave it at this: we disagree, and there is no right or wrong answer.

[XsmurfX]

you know the argument about sperm and egg being living and alive?

i don't get that.. cuz then were not supposed to kill living things.. but when guyz masterbate and sperm comes out.. lol.. are you going to argue that the guy just killed a living thing?
or when a girl has that time of month and you bleed.. it's no longer living anymore.. so .. is that wrong too?

.. i know those are prety stupid arguments.. lol.. but for the sake of keeping this thread going, how about it?

[chardish]

Blue Meanie, there ~is~ a right and wrong answer. By saying that the facts I present are actually unknown, you subtly imply that my facts are little more than fabrications. I can provide detailed medical analyses, including reports made by doctors, if you wish.

XsmurfX: Something that's simply alive is different than something that's a complete human being. A sperm or an egg cell is simply one cell. Without the billions of cells that surround it, it is meaningless. It is a component. A zygote is a complete human being. You and I were single-celled once. We were as complete then as we are today. We were simply less grown up.

[BluE_MeaniE]

Well, there may be a right or wrong answer on whether it's killing or not, but that's not what I meant. I meant that there is no right or wrong answer on the question if it's right or wrong to have an abortion. If it is inhumane, or not. If it is unjust or not

[Takisho]

A human being is alive from the moment that sperm and egg meet. At that point, the DNA of the child is formed. He has a full set of unique chromosomes, and is a completely unique individual. His genetic fate is already sealed - contained in that information is everything about how he's going to be when he's 20, 30, 40, 80.


I don't believe that your genetic fate is sealed. For instance, what if your genes gave you perfect teeth, but then when you're five, you wreck your bike and hit your head on the pavement and just totally **** up your teeth? Or, what if your genes said that you're going to be nice, but then you're "blessed" with asshole parents that treat you like ****, so you come out all mean and stuff. So your surroundings can change you; the way that you're going to be isn't sealed at birth.

[chardish]

I meant that there is no right or wrong answer on the question if it's right or wrong to have an abortion. If it is inhumane, or not. If it is unjust or not

Of course there's a right or a wrong answer! If I rape an innocent, then subject them to unspeakable tortures for six months before finally tossing their body for dead into the bottom of a river, tied to a concrete block, that's "wrong", correct? Of course it is! Every civilized human being would acknowledge that it's wrong.

The only problem is that humans are too uncivilized right now to acknowledge the utter wrongness of abortion.

You want to know what abortion does to a human? This procedure described is the most common one used for midterm abortions. Okay, imagine you're huddled naked inside a box with a tiny opening on one end. A chainsaw comes through the opening. It starts poking around until it feels your legs. Then the chainsaw comes in and slices off your legs. Next it rips off your penis and scrotum before working its way up the lower abdomen. Your body cries out in unbearable pain. You feel your torso coming apart in pieces, being flung to all sides of the box as the chainsaw rips through your raw flesh. You are conscious the whole time, feeling every moment of the agony as the saw dismembers your arms before finally piercing your skull, ending your life. The saw is removed and a pair of pincers come through the opening, pulling the pieces of your destroyed body outside the box.

Nightmarish, huh?

Abortion is an atrocity: anyone who thinks differently is either running from the truth or has not been exposed to all of the facts yet.

[chardish]

I don't believe that your genetic fate is sealed. For instance, what if your genes gave you perfect teeth, but then when you're five, you wreck your bike and hit your head on the pavement and just totally $*%# up your teeth? Or, what if your genes said that you're going to be nice, but then you're "blessed" with asshole parents that treat you like (#$%, so you come out all mean and stuff. So your surroundings can change you; the way that you're going to be isn't sealed at birth.

Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to acknowledge this. You are partially correct, Takisho. Psychologists say that there is about a 50/50 balance between genetics and experiences in determining how a person is going to turn out mentally and emotionally.

But as far as your physical body goes, your fate is sealed from conception, bar any major accidents.

In truth, you're still a complete human being, you just aren't fully developed yet. Even after puberty gets finished, there's still a lot more mental and emotional development to be done, also.

[Anonymous]

what's morally right to you, might not be morally right to someone else. for instance (excuse the comparison with food please, ) if someone beleives it is morally wrong to eat animals... or anything that comes from animals.. a vegan. who are you to say that that is any different? you yourself said "killing is killing" so we do it everyday.
now, are you going to say that this is totally different? cuz then i could say that you were "running from the truth" .. or seomthing like that. everyone has there reasons. some, in my oppinion are very wrong, and others in my oppinion are justified.
who are you, or i, or anyone else in this forum, to say that there beliefes are wrong? it's like traveling to a different country, standing in the middle of their church, and yelling " you people are all sinners"
you yourself said the people either don't know all the facts or they are running from the truth. wellchardish, you yourself don't know all the facts. you don't know why people do these things. and if you say it doesn't matter, then your wrong.

in some casses, if a girl gets pregnant when she is too small, she could die. like i said. sometimes you have to be in that person's shoes in order to think the same way.

it's sure as hell easy to stand on your soap box and preech to the world about all the wrongs in society. i know that. it's another thing all together to 1. do something about it, and 2. sympathize.

[BluE_MeaniE]

what's morally right to you, might not be morally right to someone else. for instance (excuse the comparison with food please, ) if someone beleives it is morally wrong to eat animals... or anything that comes from animals.. a vegan. who are you to say that that is any different? you yourself said "killing is killing" so we do it everyday.
now, are you going to say that this is totally different? cuz then i could say that you were "running from the truth" .. or seomthing like that. everyone has there reasons. some, in my oppinion are very wrong, and others in my oppinion are justified.
who are you, or i, or anyone else in this forum, to say that there beliefes are wrong? it's like traveling to a different country, standing in the middle of their church, and yelling " you people are all sinners"
you yourself said the people either don't know all the facts or they are running from the truth. wellchardish, you yourself don't know all the facts. you don't know why people do these things. and if you say it doesn't matter, then your wrong.

in some casses, if a girl gets pregnant when she is too small, she could die. like i said. sometimes you have to be in that person's shoes in order to think the same way.

it's sure as hell easy to stand on your soap box and preech to the world about all the wrongs in society. i know that. it's another thing all together to 1. do something about it, and 2. sympathize.

Good words, Guest. Chardish doesn't have all the answers, and he is confusing opinion with fact.

And about the vegans... even for vegans, plants are alive....
The only thing you could eat that isn't alive is a rock. And that's not possible. There is very very little nutritional value from a rock, if any.

[chardish]

Before I get to refuting Guest's claims, I'm going to make a point to BlueMeanie, who accuses me of confusing fact with opinion. If we're talking about right and wrong, of course it's a matter of opinion. But we have to go by how a civilized society should act. We can do this through examination of what is inherently wrong. True fact: in the 1700s most people believed that slavery was A-OK, and there was nothing wrong with it. When society wisened up to how inherently wrong this idea was, we abolished slavery.

Society views abortion as a medical procedure that simply "ends a pregnancy." Society sees it as something that only affects the mother and no one else in the world. Society fails to acknowledge the horror of abortion. When society realizes how inherently wrong this is, society will outlaw it.

what's morally right to you, might not be morally right to someone else.

You're absolutely right. You might think raping schoolgirls is morally right. But guess what, it's inherently wrong and most of the world realizes that. Just because you think something is right doesn't make it right.

(excuse the comparison with food please, ) if someone beleives it is morally wrong to eat animals... or anything that comes from animals.. a vegan. who are you to say that that is any different? you yourself said "killing is killing" so we do it everyday.

Actually, that was Falcon who said "killing is killing", not me. Get your facts straight. And second, it is different. Human beings are different from animals, or plant life.


now, are you going to say that this is totally different? cuz then i could say that you were "running from the truth" .. or seomthing like that. everyone has there reasons. some, in my oppinion are very wrong, and others in my oppinion are justified.
who are you, or i, or anyone else in this forum, to say that there beliefes are wrong? it's like traveling to a different country, standing in the middle of their church, and yelling " you people are all sinners"

By your broken, broken logic, you can't refute anyone's opinion whatsoever. I can say that cows are raining from the sky and by your logic you aren't allowed to say i'm wrong, because everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and if I believe cows are falling from the sky you can't stop me.

And people have been arrested before on account of killing even though they said that god made them do it. Does that mean they should be let free even though they're vicious killers? Of course not! Some beliefs are open to debate, but others are not. Killing is wrong. Period. No question.

you yourself said the people either don't know all the facts or they are running from the truth. well chardish, you yourself don't know all the facts. you don't know why people do these things.

Actually, I do. 97% of abortions are performed because the parents do not want to raise the child (simply as a method of birth control.) There have been 37,836,648 abortions from 1973-1999. (That's 1/2 the number of live births, by the way: meaning 1 in 3 kids is killed by abortion.) These numbers were released by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research branch of Planned Parenthood (the #1 abortionists in the country.) This means that 36,701,548 babies have been killed because their parents were either too scared, too selfish, too unwilling, or too worried about finances to want a child at that point in their life. As a result? An innocent is killed.

Only 1% of abortions are performed for rape/incest, and only 2% because the life of the mother is in danger.

And I am doing something about it - I am actively involved in anti-abortion movements.

Don't try to accuse me of not having my facts straight.

[Scarlette]

Well whoever is for abortion, don't let me hear you complain that a certain disease hasn't got a vaccine or something.

Every baby killed could have done something great in the world, invented something new, etc.

So women are stupid if they have abortions.


Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to acknowledge this. You are partially correct, Takisho. Psychologists say that there is about a 50/50 balance between genetics and experiences in determining how a person is going to turn out mentally and emotionally.

But as far as your physical body goes, your fate is sealed from conception, bar any major accidents.

In truth, you're still a complete human being, you just aren't fully developed yet. Even after puberty gets finished, there's still a lot more mental and emotional development to be done, also.

Edit your post next time.

[BluE_MeaniE]

Oy vey.


This won't end, so I'm going to stop posting.

There's nothing I can say that will convince you, and vice versa, Chardish.
So just go around being pissed at me, and how I'm wrong and won't give up, because there's no way to end this.

It was nice talking with you.

[chardish]

Please look at these pictures, BlueMeanie.

http://www.abortiontv.com/images/11WeekAbortion.jpg
http://www.abortiontv.com/images/Fetus-PartialBirth.jpg
http://www.abortiontv.com/images/01_08.JPG
http://www.abortiontv.com/images/01_07.JPG

Those are aborted babies within 11, 9, and 7 weeks, respectively.

This is reality.

Horrifying? Yes. But as a society, should we be tolerating something so horrifying?[/img]

[BluE_MeaniE]

Oh, god.

:oops: :oops:

I said I was done here :x :x :oops:

But, at the risk of sounding terrible, I haven't changed my opinion.
And you won't change yours.

So they argued and argued, and it never went anywhere.
The end.

[LEGO]

Hey pro-life women.

If you were raped and get pregnant w/ triplets what would you do?

Yeah... I'm sure you'd give birth to them... leaving your job etc. in the dust for 9 months... and then what? Support 3 little rape-babies? Uh, no. You'd abort or give them away to adoption. But wait! You're "depriving" them of ever knowing their mother! Who cares if 3 little rape babies could destroy your financial wellbeing, your marriage, your job; your life! Everyone deserves a chance to live, right? Bah. Abortion is a woman's right to choose.

And men. What if this happened to your wife, eh?

If you're pro-life and blahblahblah remember that an unborn baby isn't going to be mad or upset if it's not born. It's just that. Unborn.

I may not be religious and that may affect my views (as well as living in a liberal state) but if you look at it simply as a woman's rights argument then just realize that you wouldn't like it if you were put into a circumstance that could potentially change your life (as a baby will) and the government was controlling what happened.


Sorry for the run on sentences, it's too late to have grammar slow down my choochoo train of thought.

[chardish]

Lego's thoughts:

1) Financial stability is more important than human life.
2) Some babies have less of a right to live than others, simply based the basis of the circumstances of their conception. The fact that Lego refers to them as "rape-babies" suggests that he feels such children are of lesser worth than regularly conceived children.

As for the financial stuff, fun fact: Children aren't cheap. Children cost tens of thousands of dollars in food, clothing, shelter, time, etc. If money was the most important thing in life everyone would sterilize themselves. If you can't bear to keep the child at least give him up for adoption.

By Lego's argument that abortion is okay because the baby doesn't care, killing someone in their sleep with a lethal injection should be A-OK too.

By the way, only 1 in 750 rapes results in pregnancy. And even then...

"Interestingly, the pregnant rape victim’s chief complaint is not that she is unwillingly pregnant, as bad as the experience is. The critical moment is fleeting in this area. It frequently pulls families together like never before. When women are impregnated through rape, their condition is treated in accordance, as are their families. We found this experience is forgotten, replaced by remembering the abortion, because it is what they did."
-M. Uchtman, Director, Suiciders Anonymous, Report to Cincinnati City Council, Sept. 1, 1981

[jewpinthethird]

I am pro-choice. A women should do what she wants. I dont care if it is right or wrong.

But, as I have said before, until you have seen the destruction of an unwanted baby born into a family that is struggling to get by as is, you do not have the right to say anything. Really, you dont.

Those pictures do not phase me. It is nothing more than an underdeveloped organism.

True, maybe one of those aborted fetus might have grown to be the next Jesus Christ or Alexander Fleming, but then again, maybe one might have grown up to be the next Hitler or Stalin. And more than likely the unwanted child would just become a problem to society. But you never know.

[Anonymous]

And also, just-born kids look gross.

[jewpinthethird]

But they clean up nicely...after a few days.

[chardish]

I am pro-choice. A women should do what she wants. I dont care if it is right or wrong.

So if a woman wants to murder her 7-year-old son because he's an inconvenience, that's okay?

But, as I have said before, until you have seen the destruction of an unwanted baby born into a family that is struggling to get by as is, you do not have the right to say anything. Really, you dont.

Jewpin, I have seen such things happen. It is very sad that those babies had to be born under those circumstances. But neither I nor the parents (even though they wept of sadness when they discovered they were pregnant) would say "I wish they'd never been born."

Here's the truth: The vast majority of pregnant mothers who think their unborn children are simply "unwanted burdens" later grow to love and cherish the child after birth and through early childhood.

From Dr. J.C. Willke:
Back in the ’50s and ’60s, there were a good dozen well done studies which were reported in detail in your author’s editions of Handbook on Abortion in the ’70s.

All of these presumed the negative effects claimed above. They matched groups of pregnant women . . . (1) who wanted abortions, couldn’t get them and went on to deliver . . . and (2) women pleased with wanted pregnancies. These investigators studied the resultant children and compared them. Without exception, they found little difference in love, care and wantedness and of neglect and lack of care in the groups that were compared.


Those pictures do not phase me. It is nothing more than an underdeveloped organism.

So is a 7 year old child, incapable of reproduction.

True, maybe one of those aborted fetus might have grown to be the next Jesus Christ or Alexander Fleming, but then again, maybe one might have grown up to be the next Hitler or Stalin.

Who they grow up to be isn't important. Because you can't figure that out. It's giving them a chance at life that counts.


And more than likely the unwanted child would just become a problem to society. But you never know.

You contradict yourself here.

First you say that the unwanted child will probably become a problem to society.
Then you say that it is impossible to know if she will become a problem to society.

Ask children who were nearly aborted how they think. I have. Say "Do you wish you had never been born?" And look at the kind of reaction you get.

[jewpinthethird]

Well, a fetus is formed from a man's sperm, and a woman's egg...so therefore, the fetus is the property of both the man and woman. The fetus is still apart of the woman until the cord is cut....kind of like an extra liver or something. A liver is made up of living cells, but if I wanted to, I could cut it out.

Every word I said was definite fact.

And the pizza argument is inappropriate. We're talking about a living being, created through a biological act. You're talking about food.

Really I dont care. So I will leave you with this: Babies can be food too.

[Scarlette]

Eww Jewpin, that's gross.
Everyone should get a chance to live.
Jewpin, what if you had been aborted?
Then you probably wouldn't like it.
It's not any human being's right to take away a baby's life, only God has that right.
Babies should get a chance to live like you and I do.
I've been in alt of abortion marches, you know, when you stand in front of it, and we had people turn back way more than once.

[dontcareaboutmyid]

what if you were aborted...

Huh HUH!!

i got nothing, i'd just like to point out that its legal to abort in the first tri of pregnancy

[chardish]

Well, a fetus is formed from a man's sperm, and a woman's egg...so therefore, the fetus is the property of both the man and woman.

By your logic, a 42-year-old is still "property" of both parents. Also, by order of a proclamation made by President Lincoln in 1863, no human being can be considered property.

The fetus is still apart of the woman until the cord is cut....kind of like an extra liver or something.

You are wrong. The unborn baby has its own DNA, its own blood type, and its own independent nervous, circulatory, hormonal, digestive, and respiratory systems (all of which are functioning by eight weeks). The baby doesn't even share blood with his mother. The only thing that flows through the umbilical cord is a fluid filled with nutrients. It's a one-way passage.

The womb is a place of residence for a unique and individual human being. And we have no other law in America that says it is legal to kill a person who lives in your place of residence.

I won't even respond to the "babies can be food too" statement, which is silly.

[jewpinthethird]

Silly but true. If you and a baby were stranded on a desert Island, and there was nothing to eat, wouldnt you eat the baby? It isnt like it knows any better.

And I dont care about what God thinks. If God truly believed it were wrong, wouldnt he have turned abortion clinics and those who support them into salt already? Or wouldnt he have flooded the Earth for 40 days and 40 nights?

And really, if I were aborted, I wouldnt care. Because I WOULDNT KNOW ANY BETTER. Can you remember being in the womb? Really, can you? NO, YOU CANT, BECAUSE THE BRAIN HASNT DEVELOPED YET.

Also, by order of a proclamation made by President Lincoln in 1863, no human being can be considered property.

True, but you are still a tax deduction for your family. Just as your house (property tax) is a tax deduction. And he said No Human, a fetus isnt a human, it is an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal.

I would never abort my child, it just isnt something that I would do. But what someone else does with their life/fetus/property is none of my business.

Just some food for thought:

"We affirm the right of the woman to make her own decision regarding the continuation or termination of problem pregnancies"
-Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

"We believe the path of mature Christian judgement may indicate the advisabiltity of abortion. We encourage women women in counsel with husbands, doctors and pastors to make their own responsible decisions"
-United Methodist Church General Conference 1984

"In our Baptist tradition the integrity of each person's conscience must be respected; therefore we believe that abortion must be a matter of responsiblle, personal decision"
-American Baptist Churches, 1981

"I'll put an end to the idea that a women's body belongs to her...Nazi ideals demand that the practice of abortion shall be exterminated with a strong hand"
-Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

"it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing"
-John 6:63

"God built the human body from the sand of earth. Then God blew the breath of life into his nose. So Man became a living soul."
(in other words, the process of "life" is a two stage process, the building of the body and then the infusion of the soul to animate and bring life to the fetus(birth))
- Gensis II:7

"There is a natural Body, and a spiritual body"
-I Cornithians 15:44

[Anticrombie0909]

Christ Jewpin. Are you part of a pro-choice forum or something? Should be.

Anyway, I'm going with what Jewpin said above. A fetus when aborted is not developed yet, it cannot think, it is not truely a human being. We kill billions of animals every day, yet we consider it right because they are not concious, thinking, animals. Well fetuses arn't even completely developed yet, and abortion is a lot less messy and painless then getting slaughtered or shot, so one could argue that abortion is more humane than McDonalds.

[ROCKETs]

Isn't it amusing that primarily men decide whether or not abortion will be il/legal?

[makaveli121212]

you cant use the logic that the baby isnt thinking because you dont really know...and even if it isnt thinking, i could just knock you over the head with a baseball bat, rendering you unconcious, so you arent thinking, and then kill you, with no penalty to me, right?

[jewpinthethird]

Or even more amusing...

"In the year 584, in Lyons, France, forty three Catholic bishops and twenty men representing their Bishops held a most peculiar debate: "Are Women Human?" After many lenghty arguments, a vote was taken. The results were: thirty-two, yes; thirty-one, no. Women were declared human by one vote."
-Meg Bowman, Why We Burn: Sexism Exorcised

Hmmm....it is these people who argue that abortion is murder. It is these people who preach everyday single day that the soul is immortal. If the soul is so immortal, then wouldnt it just go into a new vessel, or wouldnt it go to heaven? I mean, it couldnt have sinned those few months in was in the womb now could it? Then what are they so worried about? Why should they care? They cant even have children. Remember, God forgives, humans don't.

[jewpinthethird]

you cant use the logic that the baby isnt thinking because you dont really know...and even if it isnt thinking, i could just knock you over the head with a baseball bat, rendering you unconcious, so you arent thinking, and then kill you, with no penalty to me, right?

That would be assault then murder.

The baby is still a part of the women's body.

"The cerebral and the synpotic connections are not sufficiently developed to provide the biological basis of person-hood until the thirty-first week of gestation. The presence of electrical activity is common to virtually all cells and cannot be considered meaningful "brain waves" before thirty-one weeks."

-Dr. Dominick Purpura

[Varia]

If none of those what, 40 million babies (supposedly) were aborted, they would have made more children, practiced abortion themselves and their children probably would do the same. Plus there would be 50+ million more people in the world.

You should just accept it. The world's not getting any smarter.

[chardish]

"In the year 584, in Lyons, France, forty three Catholic bishops and twenty men representing their Bishops held a most peculiar debate: "Are Women Human?" After many lenghty arguments, a vote was taken. The results were: thirty-two, yes; thirty-one, no. Women were declared human by one vote."

This is hilarious. Your argument actually works against you!
Yes, and in 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority in the land, ruled that black people were not human beings.

584: Ignorant people don't consider women to be human beings.
1492: Ignorant people don't consider Indians to be human beings.
1857: Ignorant people don't consider blacks to be human beings.
1973: Ignorant people don't consider the unborn to be human beings.

And I dont care about what God thinks. If God truly believed it were wrong, wouldnt he have turned abortion clinics and those who support them into salt already? Or wouldnt he have flooded the Earth for 40 days and 40 nights?

Because you do not know how God thinks. How can you? You're a human, he's God. He's far smarter than you. Whoever said God had to directly intervene in every human affair with a grandiose spectacle?

As for the brain argument: The human brain is not fully developed until age 25.

Is this being alive? Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead.

Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.

Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature...

...But when sperm and ovum join, there is created at that time a new living being; a being who has never before existed in the history of the world and never again will exist; a being not at the end of the line, but at the dawn of existence; a being completely intact and containing within himself or herself the totality of everything that this being will ever be; a being moving forward in an orderly process of growth and maturation, destined to live inside the mother for almost nine months and for as many as a hundred years outside...
-J.C. Willke, M.D.

So essentially we are dealing with a complete, alive, human being.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception [they defined fertilization and conception to be the same] marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7


If none of those what, 40 million babies (supposedly) were aborted, they would have made more children, practiced abortion themselves and their children probably would do the same. Plus there would be 50+ million more people in the world.

Your arguments are nothing more than baseless predicitons with little grounding in reality.

[Anonymous]

Think about how many sperm and ovum aren't put to good use everyday...so essentially, trillions of lives are being prevented, actually, make that trillions of deaths occur every moment. Do you hear their pathetic screams haunting you every night? What kind of world is this to destroy so much potential? (/sarcasm)

Actually, how about we start noticing kids who are already born, who are homeless/starving/etc., instead of wasting time on potential life. "What if's" (what if this baby were born, what if he/she/it found a cure for cancer, etc.) are marvelous and all, but I hardly think they amount to any purpose.

Furthermore, a lame example: John and Jane have intercourse tonight, and Jane ends up pregnant. But then again, what she does not because John rejected her. Is what John just did immoral? Didn't he technically just kill a baby? Or, what about sexual protection, like birth control pills and condoms...aren't those destroying uncountless lives?

i have a headache and not sure if i'm making a point here, but whatever

[ROCKETs]

oops, forgot to log in

[jewpinthethird]

Well, obviously this is not a subject which is easily solved. As what Blue Meanie said earlier "there is nothing you can do to change my mind and what can do to change yours". Not that I wont cease to debate this subject, I'm will just do it for fun.

"He who regards his knowledge to be ignorance has deep insight....He who regards his ignorance as definite truth, is deeply sick...only when one is sick of this sickness can one cease to be sick"
-Lao-Tzu, Tao Teh Ching

"The minds of those clinging to right and wrong are obstructed"
-The Zen Teachings of Hui Hai

"Because there is no quantum leap into consciousness during fetal development, there is no clean and sharp boundry between sentient and nonsentient fetuses. There is therefore no precise point at which a fetus acquires moral standing. An early abortion belongs in the same moral category as contraception"
-L.W. Sumner

As for your "You dont know how God thinks" statement:

"The the Lord God said, "Behold the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil"
-Genesis 3:22

"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all"
- Ephesians 4:6

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die....For god doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil"
-Gensis 3:2,5

Are we not Gods? We are Devo. (Bad joke)

[chardish]

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord"
-Isaiah 55:8

Your biblical references are taken out of context. Before Adam ate the apple, he had no knowledge of good and evil. These concepts were above him. God simply said that Adam has become like God (or one of the angels) in that he knows the concepts of good and evil, not that he is on the same level with God or knows how to tell the difference.

"Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
- Professor J. Lejeune, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down’s Syndrome

"Beginning of human life? — at conception."
- Professor W. Bowes, University of Colorado

"It is an established fact that human life begins at conception."
-Professor H. Gordon, Mayo Clinic

"It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception."
- Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University

In response to ROCKETs' argument, you can't kill something that doesn't exist yet. So making a decision not to create something is not the same thing as killing something. That's as absurd as saying that choosing not to build a house is the same thing as arson.

Sperm = incomplete, potential human life. It is not a complete human being. Its only choices are to fertilize an ovum or die.

Ovum = incomplete, potential human life. It is not a complete human being. Its only choices are to be fertilized by a sperm or die.

Human embryo = actual human life, destined to become a fully mature adult. He is biologically complete, nothing new will be added until his death. All he needs is time and nutrition.

6 year old = actual human life, destined to become a fully mature adult. He is biologically complete, nothing new will be added until his death. All he needs is time and nutrition.

15 year old = actual human life, destined to become a fully mature adult. He is biologically complete, nothing new will be added until his death. All he needs is time and nutrition.

[Anonymous]

I think the idea of "pro-choice"was invented by people who refuse to accept respsonsability.
I believe that if youve become pregnant youve already made the choice.its still alive it will become alive by aborting you are taking a life.
I think its time people take control of themselves and accept responsability and concequences.

[UltimateSoul]

sorry that last entry was me I must have forgotten to log in

[Moogy]

Those pics Chardish posted a while back remind me of that "alien baby" video I posted a while back. Haha, that thing was awesome.

In case you're wondering, no, I don't have anything to add to this discussion. :P

[jewpinthethird]

Moogy, you are a funny one.

And have nothing to add to the arguement at this moment.

[Anonymous]

Actually, how about we start noticing kids who are already born, who are homeless/starving/etc., instead of wasting time on potential life. "What if's" (what if this baby were born, what if he/she/it found a cure for cancer, etc.) are marvelous and all, but I hardly think they amount to any purpose.


i totally ****ing agree with you ..
i mean on this whole abortion topic.. who are we to say what's wrong or right? all were going to get is chardish, telling us what god thinks..
(no offence there buddy..)
but i think.. hrmm.. my prediction is that 50% of these topics are going to end up in religious "rights and wrongs" ...

[chardish]

Fact: I'm a religious guy.
Fact: Every argument I've given so far has been a secular argument that ignores God. The whole "would God think it's right" argument with Jewpin has been an aside.

When people talk about "who are we to say right and wrong" they forget the fact that we have some things that are clearly defined as wrong. Torture, rape, murder, burglary, etc. And no one questions them.

Something that may surprise you is that I was once pro-choice.

[jewpinthethird]

"Each year there are approximately one million teenage pregnancies (ages ten to 19) in the United States, accounting for one out of every four pregnancies. About 300,000 of these result in induced abortions, 100,000 in hasty marriages and 600,000 in births. These births cost the taxpayers over 8.3 billion dollars each year."
-Stephen Mumford: Population Growth and Global Security.

Unborn: Not brought into life by birth.

Birth:The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother.

So an unborn fetus is one that is still a part of a woman's body. So, you are saying that women shouldnt have the right to do what they want with their body.

[Anticrombie0909]

"Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
- Professor J. Lejeune, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down’s Syndrome

"Beginning of human life? — at conception."
- Professor W. Bowes, University of Colorado

"It is an established fact that human life begins at conception."
-Professor H. Gordon, Mayo Clinic

"It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception."
- Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University


All of those quotes talk about human life being concieved. Animals are alive too, but its not considered murder to kill them. The issue here, as far as I can tell, is if you are killing a concious, thinking being. Otherwise shooting a deer would be murder, because you're killing another animal. Frankly, as long as the baby is just a few cells, you're not doing anything you don't do thousands of times every day. That's right, you're constantly killing, shedding, and creating new cells. Is that murder too?

[chardish]

"Each year there are approximately one million teenage pregnancies (ages ten to 19) in the United States, accounting for one out of every four pregnancies. About 300,000 of these result in induced abortions, 100,000 in hasty marriages and 600,000 in births. These births cost the taxpayers over 8.3 billion dollars each year."
-Stephen Mumford: Population Growth and Global Security.

Guess what? ALL births cost the taxpayers money. It is inhuman to think of killing someone because they are a financial burden. Otherwise, why not kill your 12-year-old because he's too expensive for your family to maintain?

Unborn: Not brought into life by birth.

Birth:The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother.

Your dictionary definitions are not good medical analyses. Merriam-Webster is not a team of doctors.

So an unborn fetus is one that is still a part of a woman's body. So, you are saying that women shouldnt have the right to do what they want with their body.

By your logic, conjoined twins have the right to kill each other, because since they are connected, they are a part of each other's body. This is ludicrous. Just because 2 organisms are connected does not mean that they are one being. You ignore all the medical evidence i've cited above.

And if you want to bring women's rights into it, I cite great women throughout history:

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

"Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women."
- Alice Paul (original author of proposed Equal Rights Amendment)

"I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name. I would like nothing more than to have this law overturned."
- Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade)

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child ... And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
- Mother Theresa

"By encouraging society to consider a woman's child as a disposable piece of property, abortion reinforces the image of woman herself as disposable property and reusable sex object-a renewable sexual resource. It is no coincidence that the biggest single financial contributor to the cause of 'abortion rights' is the Playboy Foundation. When abortion is available to all women, all male responsibility for fertility control has been removed. A man need only offer a woman money for an abortion and that's it: no responsibility, no relationship, no commitment. And there we are... recycled and used again!"
- Cecilia Voss Koch, feminist leader

"No matter what the motive, ... the woman is awfully guilty who commits [abortion]."
- Susan B. Anthony

Anti: As a society, we should be primarily concerned with the protection of all human life. Animal rights is a completely unrelated issue.

Furthermore, Abortion involves the destruction of a complete human being. Cells are not complete human beings. Thus, that is not murder. Similarly, chopping off a finger is not murder.

[BluE_MeaniE]

The argument comes down to if it's right or wrong, I believe. I may be wrong, but so far, the facts and things that Chardish wrote are good, make sense, I understand him, and I understand is point of view. (Jewpin had some great points, also, though, don't get me wrong.)
But it really just comes down to if it is morally or ethically right or wrong, which there is no definite answer to.
Chardish, you've said that things like torture, rape, etc. are clearly defined as wrong. Yes, I think they are wrong, you think they are wrong, and the majority of people think it is wrong, but still, some people think it's right.
It's still an opinion, even if everybody agrees on one side.

So, both sides have their reasons, and arguments for themselves, and they (hopefully) understand the arguments for the other side, but each side just has a different opinion.

Like you've said, Chardish, maybe in a hundred years, everyone will think this argument is ludicrous, but right now, it's relevant.

Now, I'm not trying to just butt in and try to get this debate to just be over with, but It seems clear that nobody's going to change over.

[Anonymous]

By your logic, conjoined twins have the right to kill each other, because since they are connected, they are a part of each other's body. This is ludicrous. Just because 2 organisms are connected does not mean that they are one being. You ignore all the medical evidence i've cited above.


Jewpin wasn't stating this whatsoever, and saying something so ludicrous is disappointing. Anyways, conjoined twins have two brains; they have separate wants, feelings, priorities, etc. They are two completely separate persons which happen to be joined. A fetus at the beginning stages is pretty much (sorry for the crude analogy) ingredients for a recipe. Basically, they are just beginning to mixed together to create what will eventually become a human. In a sense, abortion is skipping the baking process.


"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
- Elizabeth Cady Stanton


Think about which is more important, the well-being of an actual thinking person, or a petri dish worth of cells. If a poor woman can not even afford to feed herself, much less afford contraception, and starves to death along with the baby...is that better? And yes, a fetus technically is the property of the woman, just as much her arm or her leg is. Cartainly, at a certain stage, when the baby becomes more developed, I do think he/she/it is his/her/its own person, though.


Anti: As a society, we should be primarily concerned with the protection of all human life. Animal rights is a completely unrelated issue.


Oh, so humans are not animals? So only human life is precious when a monkey is physically and mentally more human than a fetus?


Furthermore, Abortion involves the destruction of a complete human being. Cells are not complete human beings. Thus, that is not murder. Similarly, chopping off a finger is not murder.
Yes, a large goup of cells do not make a human. However, a fetus is not a human being, but a potential human being (just like sperm and ovum are potential fetuses).

[Anonymous]

site keeps on logging me out :/

[ROCKETs]

last two were mine -.-

[Anonymous]

i'd just like to add that all your people's quotes' are the veiws of other people. they are not set in stone and can be argued as well.
posting them doesn't prove a point, it just sayz that someone else has the same opinion as you..

by the way, i do understand chardish, but i don't agree with everything. going by the bible, you can use it to prove anything. so many people have ways of interperating the bible, and if you took every word of it serioulsy, it would contradict itself.

(that's why i don't like to bring religion into these topics..)

I beleive, in special casses, that obortion is alright.
i just don't think that having sex is right.. haha.. if that makes any sence.

you see.. people should only have sex if they truely beleive that they are going to spend the rest of their lives together.. (in my opinion, of course) .. so if a guy "acidentally " knocked up the head cheerleader after loading her full of alcohol, i think that's bad, and you shouldn't have done that, but if the guy intends on leaving her, should she have to go through all that pain, sufforing, and tourment? well.. i don't think so..

but of course, that is just my opinion..

[XsmurfX]

^keeps logging me out too^

[chardish]

chardish wrote:

By your logic, conjoined twins have the right to kill each other, because since they are connected, they are a part of each other's body. This is ludicrous. Just because 2 organisms are connected does not mean that they are one being. You ignore all the medical evidence i've cited above.



Jewpin wasn't stating this whatsoever, and saying something so ludicrous is disappointing.

Jewpin stated that the unborn child is part of the woman's body because they are physically connected. I made the comparison to show that two beings that are physically connected are not the same being.

Anyways, conjoined twins have two brains; they have separate wants, feelings, priorities, etc. They are two completely separate persons which happen to be joined.

A woman and her baby have two brains; they have separate wants, feelings, priorities, etc. And before you tell me that the unborn baby doesn't have feelings, listen to this: If an extremely bright light is shined at the outside of the woman's body, the unborn baby will actually move his hands to shield his eyes. Similarly, babies in the womb can feel pain at eight weeks. In fact, when an abortion is being performed, the unborn baby actually crawls away from the abortionist's knife. (That's right: the baby doesn't want to be aborted. Is this instinct? Yes. But it's also the same instinct exhibited by babies outside the womb as well. The only thing that has changed is the physical location of the child.

A fetus at the beginning stages is pretty much (sorry for the crude analogy) ingredients for a recipe. Basically, they are just beginning to mixed together to create what will eventually become a human. In a sense, abortion is skipping the baking process.

Wrong. A fetus (and by the way, "fetus" is Latin for "little one") is a complete human being, not "ingredients". Everything about him is complete, all he needs to become an adult is simply time and nutrition. Nothing new is added to his body between the time he is conceived and his natural death.


Think about which is more important, the well-being of an actual thinking person, or a petri dish worth of cells. If a poor woman can not even afford to feed herself, much less afford contraception, and starves to death along with the baby...is that better?

I make the argument that that woman shouldn't have been so irresponsible as to have sex in the first place. Sex carries with it a chance of creating a child: if someone is unable to support a child in the event of a conception, that person should not be having sex.

However, I am not so foolish as to run away from the argument being presented. The child has been created, but the mother cannot support her baby. She should put the child up for adoption. 2,000,000 couples are currently waiting for adoption, but only 50,000 babies get adopted each yer.

And yes, a fetus technically is the property of the woman, just as much her arm or her leg is.

No, from the moment of conception, a new individual being has been formed. The new human being has a completely different genetic makeup than the mother or the father. The new human may even have a different blood type.

Oh, so humans are not animals? So only human life is precious when a monkey is physically and mentally more human than a fetus?

How can you possibly make this argument? Monkeys do not have human DNA. They do not have human organs, or human blood, or human brains. The fetus has all of these things. An unborn baby is a complete human being - he's simply not fully grown yet. Neither is a 6 year old.

Yes, human life is supremely important and is to be protected.


Yes, a large goup of cells do not make a human. However, a fetus is not a human being, but a potential human being (just like sperm and ovum are potential fetuses).

A fetus is a human being, not a "potential" human being, since he is already complete.

Potential is a lot different than destiny. Potential means something might happen, given the presence of a catalyst. An unborn child is destined to become a fully grown adult, bar any major disasters or uncommon accidents. All he needs is time and nutrition to mature completely.

[XsmurfX]

.. uhg.. not quite what i meant.. lol

[SoujiroXx]

Potential is a lot different than destiny. Potential means something might happen, given the presence of a catalyst. An unborn child is destined to become a fully grown adult, bar any major disasters or uncommon accidents. All he needs is time and nutrition to mature completely.

You know, I only read this and a few other clip-its of your post. This is enough to make your argument void, but first - are you female? I know for one rockets is, and for you to tell any female that they haven't the right or say in what happens and/or doesn't with their body and anything in it is silly.

I'm tired so I'll try to make this short and sweet - You are saying life is utmost importance blah blah, even though most people should be shot, fine - you say an unborn child is 'destined' to be a fully grown adult. If this is true, then everything has a destiny, a purpose, a fate. A fetus, or unborn child, is a growth. It's origin is irrelevent, if unwanted by the parent/host, it is akin to a cancer. Is it immoral to wish for a tumor to be removed? An unborn child throughout pregnancy is detrimental to the body of the host, maybe not to such an extreme except in rare cases, but it is. The 'destiny' of a tumor is to grow and strive. Go ahead and argue this point, or try, but as I said an unborn child when unwanted is no different than a cancer. You may say the woman is irresponsible for having sex unprotected in the first place, but.. would she be irresponsible for getting cancer, too? Both are pretty purely accidental if removal is the main thought.

Let the happenings of a woman's body remain up to the woman whose body is in question. The only business it is is her own and the ones directly involved. A fetus is nothing more than a growth untill it's an actual, breathing being in the real world. Something striving on a host is called a parasite, parasites are terminated. -.-

-Soujiro

[chardish]

Does no one have the courage to refute my arguments that the unborn baby is not part of the woman's body? I've brought this up, citing medical evidence, about 3 or 4 times and no one has responded to it. They've simply skimmed over the issue, and in their next point said that I'm wrong while citing no evidence whatsoever that contradicts my statements.

You call an unborn child a "cancer" or a "tumor" (despite the fact that you were such a being at one time). This is not true, a cancer or a tumor comes into being when human cells begin to reproduce (through mitosis) beyond control, spreading until it destroys the host. The DNA of the cancer cells is identical to the DNA of the cancer victim and the cancer is purely a product of his/her own cells. None of this is true about an unborn child. An unborn child is not a growth because it is the product of two beings, not one.

And the fact that you say most people should be shot shows what low respect you hold for human life to begin with.

[BluE_MeaniE]

Hey, I noticed it, and I guess you're right about it, which is why I have no arguments left.
But like I said, my opinion isn't going to change.

But it seems Chardish has the most information to back up his argument....

[jewpinthethird]

How can you possibly make this argument? Monkeys do not have human DNA. They do not have human organs, or human blood, or human brains.

http://darwin.baruch.cuny.edu/gelfond/Bio1005/digestion.htm

That is why they have you dissect fetal pigs in Biology and Anatomy, because the organs are the same.

And humans share 99 percent of the same genes as chimps do.

More to come later. But for now, I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas. Sleep well everyone, for even abortion clinics are closed on this holiday.

[ROCKETs]

.. uhg.. not quite what i meant.. lolheh yea

anyways

Just want to begin, what I state is of my opinion (unless it's a proven medical fact or something), and I am not trying to attack any person's beliefs (or as one might say, facts ':roll:' ). I do respect your opinion Chardish, and I do agree with some of what you present. Also, I think you have a lot of courage to be practically the only one supporting the orthodox view while most others are progressive. I personally would never want to have abortion if i could prevent it, as it is extemely painful emotionally/mentally/physically, and I came very close to being aborted myself (actually, I was adopted, too). I have thought about what it would be like to never exist, and am glad that I wasn't aborted. And, now back to the arguements...


Jewpin stated that the unborn child is part of the woman's body because they are physically connected. I made the comparison to show that two beings that are physically connected are not the same being.


Yes, but he was referring to something INSIDE of another being, such as a heart or a kidney, not just two touching organisms. I think you fail to notice that.


A woman and her baby have two brains; they have separate wants, feelings, priorities, etc. And before you tell me that the unborn baby doesn't have feelings, listen to this: If an extremely bright light is shined at the outside of the woman's body, the unborn baby will actually move his hands to shield his eyes. Similarly, babies in the womb can feel pain at eight weeks. In fact, when an abortion is being performed, the unborn baby actually crawls away from the abortionist's knife. (That's right: the baby doesn't want to be aborted. Is this instinct? Yes. But it's also the same instinct exhibited by babies outside the womb as well. The only thing that has changed is the physical location of the child.

The separate wants, feelings, priorities, etc. don't apply until much later in the fetus' developement than right at conception. At a certain point in the developement of child, I do in fact think a child should NOT be aborted, but not when it is merely a mass of undeveloped cells, and is really just as human as sperm or ovum. And, even brainless organisms do flinch at the sign of light when accustomed to darkness for instance; and even the most simplest of cells instictively protect against anything foreign, much like how the immune system reacts to bacteria.



Wrong. A fetus (and by the way, "fetus" is Latin for "little one") is a complete human being, not "ingredients". Everything about him is complete, all he needs to become an adult is simply time and nutrition. Nothing new is added to his body between the time he is conceived and his natural death.

True, but "all he needs to become" a fetus is the simple penetration of a sperm cell into an egg...therefore, the prevention of such basically is the same thing as abortion. Do you believe contraception is wrong, too? And, the use of the word "ingredients" was not meant to be taken so literally, perhaps I should have used "formula", as in sperm+egg=fetus, ok? (Although, I still think reproduction can be considered a sort of a recipe : /)


I make the argument that that woman shouldn't have been so irresponsible as to have sex in the first place. Sex carries with it a chance of creating a child: if someone is unable to support a child in the event of a conception, that person should not be having sex.

However, I am not so foolish as to run away from the argument being presented. The child has been created, but the mother cannot support her baby. She should put the child up for adoption. 2,000,000 couples are currently waiting for adoption, but only 50,000 babies get adopted each yer.

For one thing, who are you to place all the responsibility of sex on a woman? I believe it takes two to make a child (most of the time -.-). Guess what a major priority for humans (and all other organisms) is...reproduction. To say that humans are above such instincts is acting very blind and ignorant. Sex is quite natural, and most people do not view it only as a way to create more humans, but as a way to have a sort of special bonding experience. And, so sorry, but this country isn't run by big brother yet, and every single person has a right to have sex as long as it is supported by the partner. And, I do believe people should be less frivolous, and use contraception (as there are more than enough humans as is).


No, from the moment of conception, a new individual being has been formed. The new human being has a completely different genetic makeup than the mother or the father. The new human may even have a different blood type.

No, from the moment of contraception, a mass of cells has been formed. After time, yes, a human can potentially develop.


How can you possibly make this argument? Monkeys do not have human DNA. They do not have human organs, or human blood, or human brains. The fetus has all of these things. An unborn baby is a complete human being - he's simply not fully grown yet. Neither is a 6 year old.

I would say a chimp with the ability to use vocal cords, perform complex tasks, form thoughts and ideas, communicate to others, etc., is certainly more human than a mass of cells, wouldn't you?


A fetus is a human being, not a "potential" human being, since he is already complete.

Potential is a lot different than destiny. Potential means something might happen, given the presence of a catalyst. An unborn child is destined to become a fully grown adult, bar any major disasters or uncommon accidents. All he needs is time and nutrition to mature completely.

True, but so is every sperm and ovum is a potential child, as I believe I mentioned before. Therefore, according to your logic, contraception is just as wrong as abortion.


And, Merry Christmas everyone

oh yeah, and the baby is part of the woman's body, until it is separated from it (birth).

[SoujiroXx]

Chardish, whether it is or isn't part of a woman's body is purely opinion. If you want to say a fetus (growing inside of a woman) isn't a growth of the woman's body, then I don't know where your head is. Everything is this thread is purely opinion, and people's opinions matter nothing. This is the reasoning behind the very last paragraph of my post, which you seemed to skim over. The fact you continuously bring up the point that it's two people's cells in an unborn child is irrelevent, the fact that the DNA is only half of that of a tumor is also irrelevent. They both grow inside a host. I only said it's similar to a tumor when the child is unwanted, and the parent has abortion in mind. An unwanted being taking resources from a host is a parasite, something you also 'skimmed over'. You never answered your sex, and you're too firm on your decision to seemingly even consider what anyone else is saying, thus I am failing to see why this is still going on.

The thing about most people should be shot, there are too many idiots in the world. If you're so uptight on the importance of human life, you'd care about the overall gene pool and what kind of idiots are pissing in it with their screw-up accidental kids. I don't think we need more drug dealers and idiot egotistical illiterates, do you? You're right, I hold very low respect for the human populace and the gene pool, sue me.

[chardish]

Before I get started here, let me remind everyone that I'm not attacking any of you personally, simply responding to your arguments. I respect everyone's right to their own opinion; however, what we're dealing with here is a matter of scientific fact, not opinion.

I have thought about what it would be like to never exist, and am glad that I wasn't aborted.

Don't you think that most people are glad they weren't aborted? I wonder why abortion exists at all then. Your parents gave you the gift of life, the most precious gift of all. Why should anyone want to deny that to their own children?

Yes, but he was referring to something INSIDE of another being, such as a heart or a kidney, not just two touching organisms. I think you fail to notice that.

My mistake, I understand what you're saying. It still doesn't refute any of my arguments though about the independent status of the baby.

not when it is merely a mass of undeveloped cells, and is really just as human as sperm or ovum

The difference here is whether or not the being is a living, complete, human being. Let's talk about the zygote, the single-celled organism we all were at one time.

Is the being living? Yes, the being is alive. I don't think anyone's refuting this.

Is the being complete? Yes, nothing new will be added to the being until his natural death. All he needs is time and nutrition to become a fully mature adult.

Is the being human? Yes, he has 46 human chromosomes and nothing but human cells. The being is already male or female, and all of his genetic traits (skin color, hair color, capacity for intelligence, susceptiblilty for diseases, etc.) have already been determined. As he develops he will develop human organs, a human brain, and human reproductive capabilities.

Appearances can be deceiving. Just because he doesn't look like a human doesn't mean he is biologically not a human.

True, but "all he needs to become" a fetus is the simple penetration of a sperm cell into an egg...therefore, the prevention of such basically is the same thing as abortion.

Not true. You must have missed my earlier point, a page or so ago. I said that not creating something is different than destroying something. To say that not conceiving a baby is the same thing as abortion is like saying that not building a house is the same thing as arson.

Do you believe contraception is wrong, too?

Yes and no. Personally, I'm against contraception, as I think it cheapens the idea of sexual intercourse as complete sharing of oneself. To me, contraception makes it so that you're sharing most of yourself, but holding part of it back (fecundity.) However, the biggest problem with contraception is that it causes couples to underestimate the consequences of sex, thus encouraging frivolous and irresponsible sex. But I don't think contraceptives should be outlawed.

The difference between contraception and abortion is that contraception prevents life from being created, while abortion destroys life. Not building a house vs. arson.

And, the use of the word "ingredients" was not meant to be taken so literally, perhaps I should have used "formula", as in sperm+egg=fetus, ok? (Although, I still think reproduction can be considered a sort of a recipe : /)

You're absolutely right, it is a recipe. Sperm+egg = new human being, who will remain human until his death. He needs nothing more to become human, thus, the "recipe" is complete. All he needs to develop is time and nutrition.

For one thing, who are you to place all the responsibility of sex on a woman? I believe it takes two to make a child (most of the time -.-).

You misunderstood my comments. You made the argument "A poor woman gets pregnant..." etc., and I simply said that woman shouldn't have been having sex. In no way did I mean that all the responsibility for sex fell on the woman. You simply mentioned the woman, not the couple, and I responded in reference to who you had mentioned.

To say that humans are above such instincts is acting very blind and ignorant. Sex is quite natural, and most people do not view it only as a way to create more humans, but as a way to have a sort of special bonding experience. And, so sorry, but this country isn't run by big brother yet, and every single person has a right to have sex as long as it is supported by the partner.

Sex is the only one of our biological urges that can be safely controlled, that is, you can live a full and healthy life without having sex. Humans are not above the urge for sex, but they can choose not to give into it. We have rational minds that can say "Maybe I shouldn't be having sex unless I'm prepared to accept the possibility that I may be starting a family with this other person." Everyone has the right to have sex, but people should be more understanding of the consequences. Creating a new life and starting a family is a big, big deal, and it's a decision that will stay with you for the rest of your life. One night of pleasure isn't worth it if you're not willing to accept it.

No, from the moment of contraception, a mass of cells has been formed. After time, yes, a human can potentially develop.

A complete human being has formed, which will eventually develop into a fully mature adult, given time and nutrition. You have failed to refute my scientific evidence.

I would say a chimp with the ability to use vocal cords, perform complex tasks, form thoughts and ideas, communicate to others, etc., is certainly more human than a mass of cells, wouldn't you?

I would say that he is more like a human adult in behavior, but biologically, he is not a human. He has chimp chromosomes and chimp blood and chimp organs. He can only reproduce with other chimps. He will never become a human. If you give him a human organ, his body will reject it.

Whereas this "mass of cells" you refer to (and aren't all living beings simply "a mass of cells?") has human DNA and human cells. Eventually he will become a human adult, given time and nutrition. It is his destiny.

True, but so is every sperm and ovum is a potential child, as I believe I mentioned before. Therefore, according to your logic, contraception is just as wrong as abortion.

This is not "according to my logic". Read the building a house / arson argument.

Chardish, whether it is or isn't part of a woman's body is purely opinion...The fact you continuously bring up the point that it's two people's cells in an unborn child is irrelevent, the fact that the DNA is only half of that of a tumor is also irrelevent.

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's scientific fact! You have failed at your previous arguments, you can't simply dub this a matter of opinion in an attempt to win it. And you can't call my arguments irrelevant either. When two beings have completely different DNA, they are two different beings. This is scientific fact, and undebatable. I was hoping that someone would actually try and counter my argument, rather than dismiss the proven scientific evidence I present as "irrelevant".

An unwanted being taking resources from a host is a parasite

Partially correct. A parasite is an organism that gets food and shelter from another organism. Whether or not it is wanted has nothing to do with its status as a parasite.

Ironically, you have refuted your own argument that an unborn baby is part of a woman's body. The baby cannot possibly be both a growth and a parasite at the same time, because the two terms are mutually exclusive!

Drawing a parallel:

you're too firm on your decision to seemingly even consider what anyone else is saying

As I mentioned earlier, I was once pro-choice. I became pro-life after doing much research and thoroughly considering the facts and implications of abortion. It became evident to me that there could not be a time when the fetus is simply waste to be disposed of and a time when it's an unborn baby to be cherished. Eventually I understood that the baby was a complete human from the time of conception and abortion at all times must be abhorred.

[SoujiroXx]

In an attempt to win it? Their logic is most likely that it's not something the woman uses thus it isn't a "part" such as an arm, or a leg. Because some scientist classifies it this way, that means it is set in stone? Try thinking for yourself, try not reading and believing everything someone else decides to write down. You still say something growing inside a woman isn't a growth why? dictionary dot com defines growth as "Something that grows or has grown" I think that makes sense, there are others, but that was the blunt one. I don't see how a parasite can't be a growth, either.. but you missed the point where they were two different examples.

Another thing, you still continue to ignore various points I've made pretty clear. You've ignored questions and "cut up" only bits and pieces of what I said, if you want to not consider everything and just brush off the relevent things, tell me now so I can stop wasting my time with you.

One

Let the happenings of a woman's body remain up to the woman whose body is in question. The only business it is is her own and the ones directly involved

two

,but first - are you female?

Anyways, I'm convinced you're just another one of those people who like to shove their nose into everyone else's business and voice your opinion on subjects that don't concern you at all in order to "better the world" or some of that nonsense. Another thing, "part" can mean more than one thing. It's part of the woman's body wherein it's living inside her. That makes it part of her body, not a "functioning" part, as I mentioned before, but it is still a part. If you deny this then, well.. that'd make me frown.

[Anonymous]

holly ****.. that was just way to manny quotes to read through.. again.. lol
(yup.. i don't have anything to add.. haha.. )

[chardish]

Their logic is most likely that it's not something the woman uses thus it isn't a "part" such as an arm, or a leg.

It's not part of the woman, and you have failed to refute this with any scientific evidence.

Because some scientist classifies it this way, that means it is set in stone?

Is this your way of quietly dismissing the scientific evidence? "Hmm, if the scientist disproves what I already believe, I'm just going to say he's wrong and ignore it."

Try thinking for yourself, try not reading and believing everything someone else decides to write down.

Did you miss the part where I said I used to be pro-choice? Trust me, I've thought this through myself.

You still say something growing inside a woman isn't a growth why? dictionary dot com defines growth as "Something that grows or has grown" I think that makes sense, there are others, but that was the blunt one.

1) So you're using Dictionary.com instead of an actual medical reference, language dictionaries are poor tools in debate.
2) And you're "believing what someone else decided to write down" instead of actually thinking of what a growth is. Because a "growth" is part of the same organism that has decided to offshot, etc.

I don't see how a parasite can't be a growth, either.. but you missed the point where they were two different examples.

Because a growth is part of the same organism, and the unborn baby is not part of the woman's body, and no one has presented any actual scientific evidence that says that the mother and her child are biologically the same organism.

Another thing, you still continue to ignore various points I've made pretty clear. You've ignored questions and "cut up" only bits and pieces of what I said, if you want to not consider everything and just brush off the relevent things, tell me now so I can stop wasting my time with you.

Mainly I've just been trimming your quotes. But you're right, I have missed a couple things you've said. You are also guilty of ignoring many of my points.


Let the happenings of a woman's body remain up to the woman whose body is in question. The only business it is is her own and the ones directly involved

I consider someone who's "directly involved" to be the unborn baby.

,but first - are you female?

No, I'm male. I fail to see how this is relevant though. Despite what many feminists want to think, this isn't just a woman's issue: Male babies can be aborted just as easily as female babies.

Anyways, I'm convinced you're just another one of those people who like to shove their nose into everyone else's business and voice your opinion on subjects that don't concern you at all in order to "better the world" or some of that nonsense.

I'm convinced that because you have found no way to defeat my arguments scientifically, you're resorting to dismissing my arguments as "irrelevant", stating facts to be matters of opinion, and launching ad hominem attacks.

This IS my concern, as it is the concern of everyone alive. 1 in 3 babies are killed by abortion. My generation is being killed off in a legalized massacre. I want it to end.

Another thing, "part" can mean more than one thing. It's part of the woman's body wherein it's living inside her. That makes it part of her body, not a "functioning" part, as I mentioned before, but it is still a part. If you deny this then, well.. that'd make me frown.

You're trying to escape the facts through unnecessary word-mincing. A part means the same thing as a component. An arm, leg, etc. is a part. An independent being living inside the body is not a part of the body. In some instances, the mother can even die and the baby can still live independently. Just because the baby is a passenger in her mother's womb does not mean that the baby is part of her mother's body.

By your logic, the passengers in a bus are considered bus parts.
And by your logic, women pregnant with male babies are actually hemaphrodites.

Both of these are, of course, ludicrous.

[BluE_MeaniE]

Chardish thinks it is obviously an evil process of killing babies.
Many other people think that it clearly isn't.

But it seems that many people (not everyone, I realize this, and I'm not just trying to stick my face into chardish's ass in start smooching.) are, like Charish says, avoiding his arguments, and skimming over subjects. He has done his homework, so to speak, and has scientific reasons why it is, in fact, killing babies, and not "baby-to-be"s.
Instead of trying to disregard his reasons, everyone has to look towards the ethical question of this.

[SoujiroXx]

If I was connected by flesh and blood to a bus, I would consider myself part of the bus. You're basing everything on 'fact', a definition for a word is different than what some scientist has written down. I don't see how it's your business, unless you're an unborn baby, are you? I didn't think they were intelligent enough to debate something.. I guess you could be pissy if you were partially aborted and are missing a chunk of your body too.. otherwise I don't really see a just reason, maybe another would be if your gf aborted your child.

So you were pro-choice, then found some clipits on some scientific site and turned pro-life, when you find new "proven scientific facts", are we going to be doing this again soon? You seem to be the type to flip-flop opinions.

You said you looked at the facts and thought for yourself, you looked at the facts and made a choice which to choose, you didn't actually think about it on your own, for yourself, disregarded these "proven facts" seriously, if a scientist said you were a goat on some "scientific fact" webpage, would you believe that too? The fact is true to a point, not to the extent you are bringing it to.

[makaveli121212]

If I was connected by flesh and blood to a bus, I would consider myself part of the bus. You're basing everything on 'fact'

So you were pro-choice, then found some clipits on some scientific site and turned pro-life, when you find new "proven scientific facts"

You said you looked at the facts and thought for yourself, you looked at the facts and made a choice which to choose, you didn't actually think about it on your own, for yourself, disregarded these "proven facts"


to quote homer simpson

"FACTS?! You can prove anything with facts!"

[chardish]

If I was connected by flesh and blood to a bus, I would consider myself part of the bus.

Interesting, because the unborn baby is not connected by blood to her mother. The umbilical cord is simply a passage for nutrients and hormones.

You're basing everything on 'fact', a definition for a word is different than what some scientist has written down.

Listen to me Soujiro. I am sick and tired of you simply telling me that my facts are wrong and saying my facts are "matters of opinion". Now you're trying to tell me that I can't base my arguments on fact? And you're trying to say that the dictionary is the end-all-be-all of source-citing? By your own logic, what if the dictionary is wrong? After all, it's just something some English major has written down. And you're telling me that hundreds of medical doctors are wrong?

If you want to participate in this debate, you better find some sources to back up what you're saying. You don't have a case unless you have evidence. Blue Meanie is smart enough to realize that, even though he doesn't agree with my point of view.

I don't see how it's your business, unless you're an unborn baby, are you? I didn't think they were intelligent enough to debate something..

The same logic could be used to make the argument "I don't see how murder is anyone's business, unless you're a murder victim!"...or "I don't see how the Holocaust is anyone's business, unless you're a Jew!"

I was an unborn baby once. So were you. I'm glad I was un-aborted. And I want to see to it that the millions of unique individuals who get aborted each year get a chance at life.

Just because the unborn baby doesn't have intelligence now doesn't mean that he won't develop intelligence later. Otherwise, should parents be allowed to castrate their children before they're capable of reproduction?

I guess you could be pissy if you were partially aborted and are missing a chunk of your body too.. otherwise I don't really see a just reason, maybe another would be if your gf aborted your child.

Because thousands of our people are being killed each day, and I'm sick of it. I'm also sickened that our country allows such a thing to happen.

So you were pro-choice, then found some clipits on some scientific site and turned pro-life, when you find new "proven scientific facts", are we going to be doing this again soon? You seem to be the type to flip-flop opinions.

Much of what you state here is nothing but inference without evidence; that is, you took one thing I said and filled in the blanks with your own ignorant guesswork. You have no idea how I became pro-life: it took years of thought and self-deliberation.

Your statement that I may abandon this view for your view is especially amusing seeing as you have found no actual evidence to back up any of your views. (Thus, where would I find these scientific facts that would change my mind? They seem to have eluded you.) It is also interesting that you say that I "seem to be the type to flip-flop opinions" despite the fact that I have exhibited none of this behavior in this entire thread. I have remained steadfast and stoic.

You said you looked at the facts and thought for yourself, you looked at the facts and made a choice which to choose, you didn't actually think about it on your own, for yourself, disregarded these "proven facts" seriously, if a scientist said you were a goat on some "scientific fact" webpage, would you believe that too? The fact is true to a point, not to the extent you are bringing it to.

You think I find my facts from websites? No, I find them in books. Of course, you have no way of knowing this. You're losing this debate, so you've resorted to ad hominem attacks and fabricating stories about how I arrive at conclusions and assuming that I believe everything I read. Ironic, as from what you have said, you appear to believe very little of what you read, unless it happens to coincide with what you already believe to be true.

Your arguments are simply put, insane. Because you believe that people should "think for themselves," you are dismissing everything else anyone says as potentially false. Thus, you are, in effect, choosing to ignore the truthfulness of anything anyone says! In an attempt to make yourself appear like an independent thinker, you are placing yourself above the facts.

If you want this debate to go on, Soujiro, find your own evidence. Then attack my evidence using your own evidence. Don't just try to debunk me by claiming my facts are wrong without anything to back you up. That is the mark of an ignorant, uneducated man.

[Anticrombie0909]

Ok, sorry I've been gone, 56k is a bitch, time to jump back into the debate. First off, Chardish:

Interesting, because the unborn baby is not connected by blood to her mother. The umbilical cord is simply a passage for nutrients and hormones.

That may be, the baby is still sharing the mother's body, sharing her resources, and as far as I'm concerned, is part of the mother until time of birth. Non-hereditary blood diseases are passed from mother to child (such as HIV), so I'm inclined to believe that there is some blood transfusion taking place between the two.

After all, it's just something some English major has written down. And you're telling me that hundreds of medical doctors are wrong?

I agree with the gist of your statement, but disagree with your reasoning. After all, modern medicine today is based on things that old doctors years ago wrote down. Aristotle was widely believed for over 200 years on his views of health before modern medicine proved him wrong. Besides that, hundreds of medical doctors also lean the other way about this issue, and don't ask for citings because I don't need any. If all medical doctors felt the same way there wouldn't be a debate in the first place and the point would be moot.

I was an unborn baby once. So were you. I'm glad I was un-aborted.

If you deprive a man of sight from the instant he is born, and never speak of sight around him, he won't know what 'sight' even is, and won't feel like he's missing anything. You can't miss what you don't know about, and if you weren't born, you really wouldn't know what you were missing, so you really wouldn't care. Although, you'd be dead, so again, the point is moot anyway.

Because thousands of our people are being killed each day, and I'm sick of it.

But the point is, at the time of abortion, they are not alive yet, so they are not truely killed. If you really want to say that they are cells which would have had a life, then I'll go back to saying that everybody in the world is a mass murderer, because we kill thousands of cells every day. Brushing your hand along a rough surface kills thousands of skin cells. And at abortion, the fetus is not a human, yet. They are nothing but cells.

I'm also sickened that our country allows such a thing to happen.

Are you also sickened that our country starts wars? Bombs villages? Installs dictators in foreign countries? Murders, rapes, steals, lies, cheats, every day? Because I don't see you speaking out against those, and most would agree they are far worse. You don't get put to death for aborting your baby.

your own ignorant guesswork.You're losing this debate, so you've resorted to ad hominem attacks and fabricating stories That is the mark of an ignorant, uneducated man.

Finally, let's try to keep it civil here, Chardish. After all, this is debating, not flaming.

[VxDx]

Abortion is a-ok. End of discussion.

[chardish]

That may be, the baby is still sharing the mother's body, sharing her resources

Interestingly enough, it is the mother that is sharing her body with the baby, not the other way around. It is also the mother's body that gives nutrients to her baby (the baby isn't "sucking them out" or anything.

and as far as I'm concerned, is part of the mother until time of birth.

The baby and mother are two separate organisms that are phyiscally connected.

Non-hereditary blood diseases are passed from mother to child (such as HIV), so I'm inclined to believe that there is some blood transfusion taking place between the two.

Maternal HIV is transmitted from mother to child through contact with the placenta and cervical secretions. Only 15-30% of children born of HIV-infected mothers are infected themselves. If mother and child shared blood, the rate would be 100%.

I agree with the gist of your statement, but disagree with your reasoning. After all, modern medicine today is based on things that old doctors years ago wrote down. Aristotle was widely believed for over 200 years on his views of health before modern medicine proved him wrong.

I agree with all of this. However, "we used to be wrong when we thought we were right, and we think we're right now" is not an effective counter-argument.

Besides that, hundreds of medical doctors also lean the other way about this issue, and don't ask for citings because I don't need any. If all medical doctors felt the same way there wouldn't be a debate in the first place and the point would be moot.

In the medical community, it is almost universally accepted that human life begins at the moment of conception.

The debate is about the ethicality of killing an unborn human.


If you deprive a man of sight from the instant he is born, and never speak of sight around him, he won't know what 'sight' even is, and won't feel like he's missing anything. You can't miss what you don't know about, and if you weren't born, you really wouldn't know what you were missing, so you really wouldn't care.

True, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong to blind people from birth.


[/quote="Anticrombie0909"]But the point is, at the time of abortion, they are not alive yet, so they are not truely killed. [/quote]

First off, when is "the time of abortion?" Abortion is legal in all 50 states at any time in the pregnancy, for any reason.

And the unborn baby is very much alive. He lives, he grows, he develops. Surely something biological that is not alive could not grow and develop.

If you really want to say that they are cells which would have had a life, then I'll go back to saying that everybody in the world is a mass murderer, because we kill thousands of cells every day. Brushing your hand along a rough surface kills thousands of skin cells.

The difference is, a skin cell is not a complete human being. It's not murder unless it ends the life of a complete human being.
An unborn baby is a complete human being, who is simply not fully developed yet. So is a 15-year-old.

And at abortion, the fetus is not a human, yet. They are nothing but cells.

You and I are "nothing but cells" as well. The fetus is human, as well. He has human blood, human organs, human DNA, and a human brain. He is a unique individual - no one like him has ever been created and no one like him ever will be.

Just because he doesn't look like a human adult, doesn't mean he's not human.

Here's biological proof. Every being belongs to a species. What species does the unborn baby belong to?


Are you also sickened that our country starts wars? Bombs villages? Installs dictators in foreign countries? Murders, rapes, steals, lies, cheats, every day? Because I don't see you speaking out against those, and most would agree they are far worse. You don't get put to death for aborting your baby.

While most of those aren't even true, I do speak out against government corruption. But I can't stand that 37,836,648 Americans have been killed from 1973-1999, and that the government says it's legal.

You can park in the handicap spot of an abortion facility, get a $500 fine for parking there, and incur no penalty for actually signing the papers to have your baby killed.


Quote:
your own ignorant guesswork.
Quote:
You're losing this debate, so you've resorted to ad hominem attacks and fabricating stories
Quote:
That is the mark of an ignorant, uneducated man.

Finally, let's try to keep it civil here, Chardish. After all, this is debating, not flaming.

I defend my comments. In the first one I was using the literal definition of the word "ignorant", that is, he was without knowledge of the situation when he made his guesswork.

In the second quote (which you trimmed), he was resorting to ad hominem attacks and fabricating stories about how I became pro-life, of which in all reality he knew nothing.

In the third quote I was not calling Soujiro ignorant, I was simply warning him that his statments were making him appear to be ignorant. Somewhat of a difference there.

Abortion is a-ok. End of discussion.
Slavery is a-ok. End of discussion.
Killing Jews is a-ok. End of discussion.
Smashing airplanes into civilian buildings is a-ok. End of discussion.

Ah, how easy debates would be if one person could immediately declare themselves the winner for any reason.

[jewpinthethird]

That may be, the baby is still sharing the mother's body, sharing her resources

Interestingly enough, it is the mother that is sharing her body with the baby, not the other way around. It is also the mother's body that gives nutrients to her baby (the baby isn't "sucking them out" or anything.

Is the glass half empty or half full? Is the mother giving the fetus the nutrients, or is the baby taking them from the mother?

In the medical community, it is almost universally accepted that human life begins at the moment of conception.

Well, "almost" doesnt cut it. In the scientific community, it is almost universally accepted that evolution is real and that humans and chimps evolved from the same common ancestor because of our similar body structures, greater intellegence, and almost identical genes. But it is all a matter of opinion.

Killing Jews is a-ok. End of discussion.
Mein Kampf[/i] also]Nazi ideals demand that the practice of abortion shall be exterminated with a strong hand.

[chardish]

Every scientific theory has its opponents, which is why I used the term "almost."

Ironically, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, supported the use of concentration camps, forced sterilization, and forced abortions for everyone unfit to be part of the "master race".

[jewpinthethird]

Oh, good one.

I have nothing else to add.

[Ridge]

just eat the baby

[chardish]

Actually, there are hippie groups out there that eat placenta. It's the only human meat you can eat without harming the human.

Too weird for my palate.

[jewpinthethird]

Hmmm...weird and true....delicious maybe?

[chardish]

Doubtful.

[alainbryden]

I haven't been in this debate, but I wanted to make an imput.
At the risk of pro-choicers being hypocritical, shouldn't the debate concern sentience?

People kill hundreds of thousands of cows, horses, other livestock, for trivial reasons such as lameness or sickness or them being unwanted, every year. There are some who protest this, I think it's a little dramatic; but would you not agree that if you had a dog or cat or horse that you grew up with and loved so much you beleived it was near-sentient at times, and you found out that in china they kill all these for food, that you would be disgusted?

Now I know baby's are a slightly different case, because they will become sentient, but not until al little after the age of 3. Until then they are like any other animal that is heartlessly slaughtered. The reason you wouldn't kill a 3 year old child, is the same you wouldn't kill your dog, except even more strongly so.

I know I'm throwing statements around in circles, but what I'm trying to say is that abortion is a lot like suicide. There are a million ways to argue that it wrong, or that it's a persons right, but when it comes down to human condition and what is ultimately unknown about death, It is impossible to say that it is going to make any difference to anyone or anything in the long run, and... oh hell, nothing makes any difference in the long run. You know what? Killing potential sources of happiness, happiness being, in my opinion, is the only reason we have of living, is wrong. So don't do it, if you have the choice, if someone else doesn't see it that way, I can't say anyone can do anything about it, but I hope they may suffer mental anguish if they are one day intelligent enough to see that it is a gift to die at an old age.